Summary
noting that " trial court errs when it rules on an issue not presented to it"
Summary of this case from Thompson v. Monroe Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau (In re Upset Tax Sale of Sept. 15, 2010)Opinion
Argued December 11, 1980
January 22, 1981.
Motor vehicles — Revocation of motor vehicle operator's license — Timeliness of revocation — Failure to raise question properly below.
1. A court errs in overturning action revoking a motor vehicle operator's license because of the alleged untimeliness of the revocation notice when that issue was not presented to the court by the licensee appealing the revocation. [254]
Argued December 11, 1980, before Judges MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1334 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Robert Reott, No. 3491 of 1979.
Revocation of motor vehicle operator's license by Department of Transportation. Licensee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County. Appeal sustained. MIHALICH, J. Commonwealth appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed. Revocation order reinstated.
Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Attorney General, with him Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel of Transportation, Robert W. Cunliff, Deputy Attorney General, Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for appellant.
No appearance for the appellee.
The Department of Transportation (Department) has appealed from the action of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County reversing the Department's revocation of Robert Reott's operator's license.
In September 1978, Reott was convicted of driving while under a prior license suspension, a violation of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. § 1543. About seven months later, the Department sent notice to Reott, informing him that his license would be revoked for six months effective April 25, 1979. Reott appealed the Department's action to the court below and a hearing was conducted at which Reott was represented by counsel. Reott's sole defense was an attack on the merits of his conviction of driving while under suspension. The trial Judge sustained the Department's objections to this line of attack. The court later entered an order effectively setting aside the revocation on the ground that the Department had failed to comply with the requirement of 75 Pa. C. S. § 1551 that notice of the suspension of operating privileges be given within six months of the date of conviction. Although the court recognized that 75 Pa. C. S. § 1551 pertains to the suspension of an operator's license for point accumulation, not revocation for driving while under suspension, it reasoned that the six month provision was reasonable and should be applied to all suspension or revocation notifications.
The Department contends that because Reott did not raise the issue of the timeliness of the revocation notice in the court below, it was error to overturn Reott's revocation on that ground. We agree. A trial court errs when it rules on an issue not presented to it, because an issue not raised is deemed waived. Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Searer, 50 Pa. Commw. 468, 413 A.2d 1157, 1158 (1980).
While it is not necessary to reach the merits of the lower court's holding, we note that our decision in Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Keller, 48 Pa. Commw. 457, 410 A.2d 1288 (1980), handed down after this case was decide below would require us to reverse on the merits.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 1981, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, No. 3491 of 1979, is hereby reversed and the order of the Department of Transportation is hereby reinstated.